I just received my copy of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation” written by Kerry Louderback-Wood. Before I go into why I am writing this might I say “Wow!”
Hopefully I can get across what I am thinking, although I tend to not make myself clear. Please let me know if this makes sense to you.
As I was reading this I couldn’t help but try to view some of the information on a level that went beyond the blood teachings of the WTBTS. As I was reading this I couldn’t help but think about 1975! I can’t help but wonder for the ones of us who were pressured into getting baptized in the years preceding 1975, IF we could sue the WTBTS. Especially those that in future years became disfellowshipped and thus shunned by everyone in their lives. I can’t help but think about my brother who, at age 17, was shunned and consequently his whole family and friends, from 1977 (or so) until just recently, had been hurt by the WTBTS’s teachings of shunning. My brother accepts that he was shunned because of their teachings, but he cannot understand, and I agree with him, why his wife and children were also shunned. They didn’t do anything wrong! But I digress.
Kerry talks about how, in the past, Courts were reticent about going after religions about their practices and teachings. This is all changing thank Gawd. In the following I will quote from the brochure but will try to keep it at a minimum. My comments will be highlighted in red. Direct quotes from the brochure will be in bold and italicized.
On page 785 this was said:
“A state can intrude, however, either directly or through allowing tort action, in one’s right to exercise religious beliefs provided the state’s action can meet a four-part test:
- Government must have an important or compelling state interest.*
- The “burden of expression must be essential to further” this interest.
- The “burden must be the minimum required to achieve” this interest.
- The measure must apply to everyone, not just the questioned religion. (1) (2)
* I would think that indeed there would be a state interest in the practice, in the years preceding 1975, where someone felt coerced to be baptized. Especially for those disfellowshipped and consequently being shunned. Look at the past few years and the ones who were disfellowshipped, cut off, and possibly even losing their livelihood, and then went on to kill their families. Christian Longo comes to mind at the moment.
It is also stated on this same page (785):
“… Additionally, courts are now willing to allow aggrieved citizens to sue their church if it misrepresented a secular fact...”
What follows is what caught my attention. On pages 786 & 787 the brochure talks about the Unification Church and how they were sued because they denied being “the Moonies” in their indoctrination tactics. (3)
“The Unification Church argued that, despite the revelation of the church’s fraud, the recruits condone the misrepresentation by becoming members.”* (4)
This is something that I have said for years now, and now I find this wrong. I have said that a person cannot sue because they “knew” (by the thoughts of the WTBT AND the Universal Church). I only said this because at the time I stated it, the courts separated church and state.
In this case, because the Unification Church told a recruit “his parents were agents of Satan trying to tempt him away from the Church,” family members were unable to persuade him away from the church . (5)
Sound familiar?
On page 787:
“As the legal treatise “Prosser and Keeton on Torts” explains, the majority of courts hold that “misrepresentation” occurs when there are:
(1) ambiguous statements made with the intent that the listener reach a false conclusion. *
(2) literally true statements that create a false impression; *
(3) words or acts which create a false impression covering up the truth; or *
(4) nondisclosure when the “parties stand in some confidential or fiduciary relation to each other, such as … old friends, … where special trust and confidence is reposed.” * (6)
I may be wrong in my assessment of these statements, but I think that definitely #2 or #3 can be used to sue the WTBTS regarding the 1975 fiasco.
#1 may be a bit hard to prove since they can SAY that they did not INTEND to lead their followers to “reach a false impression.”
#2 might be used if #1 cannot be used, on the basis that the Society states that they did not intend their r&f to reach a false conclusion.”
#3 might be used because their words did indeed “create a false impression.” Because now they say that they did not ACTUALLY SAY that the end would come in 1975. That is true but they did heavily IMPLY it.
#4 confuses me a bit. I’m not a Lawyer therefore I don’t understand legalese.
******************************************************************************************
1. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 844 (2d Dist. Div. 7 1989.
2. “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation” page 785.
3. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal. 3d 1092 (Cal. 1988)
4. Ibid. at 1102.
- Ibid. at 1104.
- Robert F. Keeton et. Al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § (5 th ed. 1984).
I know this is a long post, and thank you to all that actually read through this. I am not one for long posts but this time I felt this was important.
THANK YOU SO MUCH KERRY LOUDERBACK-WOOD FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION!
What do you think? Do you feel that one COULD sue based on this information?